Custom attributes (again)

[Alex Rønne Petersen]

On 06-04-2012 09:54, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 4/6/2012 12:49 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>> What about type declarations? I think those ought to be supported too.
>> E.g. it
>> makes sense to mark an entire type as @attr(serializable) (or the
>> inverse).
>
>
> That would make it a "type constructor", not a storage class, which we
> talked about earlier in the thread. I refer you to that discussion.

To be clear, I don't want annotations on a type declaration to actually 
affect the type. Annotations are just that: Annotations. Nothing else.

Does a design like that still give rise to the semantic issues you 
mentioned (it isn't clear what those are)?

-- 
- Alex